Good morning. I commend Chairman Lieberman for calling this hearing and thank our witnesses for being with us today.
Homeland security presents challenges to our country in different ways. Our commitment to both national security and civil liberties is tested as we work to develop solutions that not only make a stronger, safer America, but a better one. We need to determine how we can best prevent, protect, and respond to threats on our homeland while preserving the freedoms that define America.
The legislation we are reviewing this morning raises several important issues.
Whatever strategy we undertake must maximize the talents of those charged with homeland security, as well as provide sufficient resources to address the threat. As chairman of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, I recently chaired a hearing where representatives across government, including the FBI, NSA, and DoD, testified that their agencies need more people with critical skills in math, science, and foreign languages. That hearing focused on legislation introduced by Senators Durbin, Thompson, and I, S. 1800, the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act, and S. 1799, the Homeland Security Education Act. Both bills would ensure that agencies have the critical people with the critical skills to guide the federal agencies in their national security missions over the long-term.
Nor should union representation be a litmus-test for the patriotism of federal workers. I am disappointed by the President's recent action barring union representation for some 500 clerical and support employees at the Department of Justice. We should avoid the unintended consequences of a further erosion of Title 5 rights, including collective bargaining arrangements for federal employees.
Federal employees are prohibited by statute from striking, and their right to union representation does not constitute a national security risk. Union members are no less loyal than others Americans to their country. What the attacks of 9-11 demonstrated is that we are all soldiers in the war against terrorism.
Moreover, we need to be certain that government has enough of the right people and resources to carry out new homeland security missions. The mission and responsibilities of the proposed Department for National Homeland Security is greater than the sum of the individual missions of the agencies that make it up. Like other agencies, the Department of Homeland Security should have the people and the resources necessary to carry out its mission.
The Director of the National Office for Combating Terrorism and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security would be charged with domestic security responsibilities. Both should be under civilian control, with the heads of both offices subject to Senate confirmation.
We should also remember that future terrorist attacks will affect regions of our country differently. There is no "one type fits all strategy." Geographically distant states like Hawaii and rural areas will require different response strategies and resources than New York City or Washington, D.C.
As we review this legislation, we should consider how it can be most effective, while preserving the principles that make America great.
Again, I wish to express my appreciation to our witnesses for their testimonies.
